Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Difficult situation
19 views
Skip to first unread message
pete
Dec 6, 2011, 4:35:09 PM12/6/11
to
Many here know who I am and I am posting this way to avoid a poster
who monitors my name on google groups.
I belong to several disabled clubs.
We have volunteers who are disabled and can be classed as vulnerable
adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a lady about 50
years old who is usually having an episode. She is classed as bi-polar
and a manic depressive but reasonable sensible when not having an
episode. The senior member of staff is sleeping with her but I feel
certain this is improper.
I know this is not acceptable behaviour but it seems to have been
accepted by other members who probably dare not mention anything for
fear of being cold shouldered or worse.
Am I being too sensitive? If not what can I do about it?
who monitors my name on google groups.
I belong to several disabled clubs.
We have volunteers who are disabled and can be classed as vulnerable
adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a lady about 50
years old who is usually having an episode. She is classed as bi-polar
and a manic depressive but reasonable sensible when not having an
episode. The senior member of staff is sleeping with her but I feel
certain this is improper.
I know this is not acceptable behaviour but it seems to have been
accepted by other members who probably dare not mention anything for
fear of being cold shouldered or worse.
Am I being too sensitive? If not what can I do about it?
steve robinson
Dec 6, 2011, 5:20:03 PM12/6/11
to
pete wrote:
> Many here know who I am and I am posting this way to avoid a poster
> who monitors my name on google groups.
>
> I belong to several disabled clubs.
>
> We have volunteers who are disabled and can be classed as vulnerable
> adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a lady about 50
> years old who is usually having an episode. She is classed as
> bi-polar and a manic depressive but reasonable sensible when not
> having an episode. The senior member of staff is sleeping with her
> but I feel certain this is improper.
How do you know this
> Many here know who I am and I am posting this way to avoid a poster
> who monitors my name on google groups.
>
> I belong to several disabled clubs.
>
> We have volunteers who are disabled and can be classed as vulnerable
> adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a lady about 50
> years old who is usually having an episode. She is classed as
> bi-polar and a manic depressive but reasonable sensible when not
> having an episode. The senior member of staff is sleeping with her
> but I feel certain this is improper.
>
> I know this is not acceptable behaviour but it seems to have been
> accepted by other members who probably dare not mention anything for
> fear of being cold shouldered or worse.
Why is it unacceptable being bi polar doesnot render you incapable of
> I know this is not acceptable behaviour but it seems to have been
> accepted by other members who probably dare not mention anything for
> fear of being cold shouldered or worse.
making relationship choices many health care proffesionals recognise
that a loving caring relationship thats stable can help suffers
>
> Am I being too sensitive? If not what can I do about it?
You could inform the SS , possibly put the women into a deep
> Am I being too sensitive? If not what can I do about it?
clinical depression , possible suicidal or you could wish them all
the best
You could of course just mind your own business
Percy Picacity
Dec 6, 2011, 5:45:03 PM12/6/11
to
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in
news:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
This is actually very difficult. If the club provides any kind of
social support to the members then the the position of the senior
member of staff is questionable. Indeed any other professional
(health or social care) who knows of the affair would be guilty of
misconduct if they *failed* to mention this situation to the local
adult protection team. Perhaps said team would conclude that the
affair did not amount to abuse, but it would still be unwise for the
senior member of staff to remain in any kind of care role toward the
woman.
If, however, the woman does not appear to be exploited by the affair
then I envy the OP who, as a volunteer, is not going to lose his job
if he fails to report the situation: he therefore has the option of
"minding his own business".
I suggest the OP minds his own business if both parties seem happy
with the affair, but if he genuinely suspects that harm is likely to
the woman the next port of call is the local social services adult
protection team. This is on the understanding that the club is
providing social care for the members, not just a social club. A
good test is whether the club is funded by social services or not.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am quite sure that having an affair
with a vulnerable adult when being responsible for even a small
aspect of their care is unacceptable, but the parties may not have
thought of this if they regard each other as equals. A brave OP
could consider approaching the senior member of staff and explain
how the situation looks.
--
Percy Picacity
news:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
social support to the members then the the position of the senior
member of staff is questionable. Indeed any other professional
(health or social care) who knows of the affair would be guilty of
misconduct if they *failed* to mention this situation to the local
adult protection team. Perhaps said team would conclude that the
affair did not amount to abuse, but it would still be unwise for the
senior member of staff to remain in any kind of care role toward the
woman.
If, however, the woman does not appear to be exploited by the affair
then I envy the OP who, as a volunteer, is not going to lose his job
if he fails to report the situation: he therefore has the option of
"minding his own business".
I suggest the OP minds his own business if both parties seem happy
with the affair, but if he genuinely suspects that harm is likely to
the woman the next port of call is the local social services adult
protection team. This is on the understanding that the club is
providing social care for the members, not just a social club. A
good test is whether the club is funded by social services or not.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am quite sure that having an affair
with a vulnerable adult when being responsible for even a small
aspect of their care is unacceptable, but the parties may not have
thought of this if they regard each other as equals. A brave OP
could consider approaching the senior member of staff and explain
how the situation looks.
--
Percy Picacity
Hugh - Was Invisible
Dec 6, 2011, 7:20:02 PM12/6/11
to
mental health. The law was brought very firmly to everyone's attention
relating to those who cared for vulnerable adults and relationships. I
cannot quote the act but as I recall anyone who could be considered a
carer who has a relationship with someone they might give care to commits
a criminal offence. Hopefully someone with real knowledge or time to
google will be along soon.
Sara
Dec 7, 2011, 2:20:02 AM12/7/11
to
In article <op.v53e04fmgtk8fg@admin-pc>,
Is the lady actually registered as a vulnerable adult? If it just your
view that she could be seen as such, then I'd say keep well out of it.
--
There are cats everywhere
view that she could be seen as such, then I'd say keep well out of it.
--
There are cats everywhere
Percy Picacity
Dec 7, 2011, 4:25:04 AM12/7/11
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:saramerriman-6589...@news.individual.net:
Vulnerability is not AFAIK registered. In any case, someone with a
significant mental illness is inevitably regarded as vulnerable in
respect of their relationship to those caring for them.
Another consideration is that even if the relationship in question
is not exploitative its existence may be distressing or threatening
to other people in the group with mental illness who may fear that
they are vulnerable to exploitation by carers if this sort of thing
goes on.
As an old person distressed by growing political correctness I want
to say "mind your own business" to the OP, but I fear this may not
be the right answer.
--
Percy Picacity
news:saramerriman-6589...@news.individual.net:
significant mental illness is inevitably regarded as vulnerable in
respect of their relationship to those caring for them.
Another consideration is that even if the relationship in question
is not exploitative its existence may be distressing or threatening
to other people in the group with mental illness who may fear that
they are vulnerable to exploitation by carers if this sort of thing
goes on.
As an old person distressed by growing political correctness I want
to say "mind your own business" to the OP, but I fear this may not
be the right answer.
--
Percy Picacity
The Todal
Dec 7, 2011, 5:00:05 AM12/7/11
to
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org...
concerns that a vulnerable adult is being abused or exploited, the response
"mind your own business" is abusive.
All local authorities have a policy to protect vulnerable adults and it is
necessary to contact the social services department, give them all the
information they need and leave it to them.
I know bipolar people who function very well in society and would not be
regarded as vulnerable to exploitation but it may depend on the individual.
arthur
Dec 7, 2011, 5:00:05 AM12/7/11
to
now this relationship has been broken the lady has indeed gone into
severe depression.
We have strict rules about not being alone with any vulnerable people
and these rules are being flouted by someone who should know better. I
don't want this to happen again.
pete
Dec 7, 2011, 5:10:04 AM12/7/11
to
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:45:03 +0000, Percy Picacity
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in
>news:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in
>news:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
>For the avoidance of doubt, I am quite sure that having an affair
>with a vulnerable adult when being responsible for even a small
>aspect of their care is unacceptable, but the parties may not have
>thought of this if they regard each other as equals. A brave OP
>could consider approaching the senior member of staff and explain
>how the situation looks.
We are supposed to be looking after vulnerable adults and children
>with a vulnerable adult when being responsible for even a small
>aspect of their care is unacceptable, but the parties may not have
>thought of this if they regard each other as equals. A brave OP
>could consider approaching the senior member of staff and explain
>how the situation looks.
with disabilities and now another member of staff has followed the
example and moved in with a disabled woman volunteer.
I have made a mention about the first occasion I mentioned but the
reply was the affair is over so no harm has been done. That is like
saying abusing a child was OK as it has finished. This may cost me my
position I suppose but I am not a vulnerable adult. I do want to be
sure my old fashioned ideas are not completely out of date before I
act and that is why I am posting here to judge the replies.
arthur
Dec 7, 2011, 5:10:04 AM12/7/11
to
very senior in the organisation.
arthur
Dec 7, 2011, 5:10:03 AM12/7/11
to
arthur
Dec 7, 2011, 5:15:03 AM12/7/11
to
and part of my training was never allow myself to be in a position
where my position within the organisation might be "seen" as
exploitive.
Man at B&Q
Dec 7, 2011, 5:15:03 AM12/7/11
to
On Dec 6, 10:45 pm, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote innews:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
>
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote innews:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
>
> >> We have volunteers who are disabled and can be classed as
> vulnerable
> >> adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a lady about
> 50
>
> vulnerable
> >> adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a lady about
> 50
>
> This is actually very difficult. If the club provides any kind of
> social support to the members then the the position of the senior
> member of staff is questionable.
The way I read it, the lady in question is a *volunteer*, i.e.,
> social support to the members then the the position of the senior
> member of staff is questionable.
effectively part of the care team not one being cared for. Unless
there is a breach of rules about conflict of interest (In my employers
case, e.g., managers may not form relationships with those under their
direct supervision) the OP should keep his nose out.
MBQ
Kate XXXXXX
Dec 7, 2011, 6:05:02 AM12/7/11
to
--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
Sara
Dec 7, 2011, 7:50:03 AM12/7/11
to
In article <Xns9FB45FA585...@208.90.168.18>,
Should Stephen Fry be classed as a vulnerable adult?
My stepfather was (as we called it then) a manic depressive, and I've
known several people over the years that have suffered from depression
and had treatment from either their GP or in one case a psychiatric
outpatients clinic. They all had full time jobs and would have been
astounded if they'd been told they could be viewed as vulnerable adults
whose personal lives were anyone else's concern.
> Another consideration is that even if the relationship in question
> is not exploitative its existence may be distressing or threatening
> to other people in the group with mental illness who may fear that
> they are vulnerable to exploitation by carers if this sort of thing
> goes on.
>
Neither of the participants in the affair were clients, one worked for
the club as staff and one as a volunteer.
> As an old person distressed by growing political correctness I want
> to say "mind your own business" to the OP, but I fear this may not
> be the right answer.
There we will have to agree to disagree.
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> news:saramerriman-6589...@news.individual.net:
>
> > In article <op.v53e04fmgtk8fg@admin-pc>,
> > "Hugh - Was Invisible" <invi...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >> For a short time I was employed part time by a NHS Trust
> >> specialising in mental health. The law was brought very firmly
> >> to everyone's attention relating to those who cared for
> >> vulnerable adults and relationships. I cannot quote the act but
> >> as I recall anyone who could be considered a carer who has a
> >> relationship with someone they might give care to commits a
> >> criminal offence. Hopefully someone with real knowledge or time
> >> to google will be along soon.
> >
> > Is the lady actually registered as a vulnerable adult? If it just
> > your view that she could be seen as such, then I'd say keep well
> > out of it.
> >
>
> Vulnerability is not AFAIK registered. In any case, someone with a
> significant mental illness is inevitably regarded as vulnerable in
> respect of their relationship to those caring for them.
>
Who decides who is a vulnerable adult?
> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> news:saramerriman-6589...@news.individual.net:
>
> > In article <op.v53e04fmgtk8fg@admin-pc>,
> > "Hugh - Was Invisible" <invi...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >> For a short time I was employed part time by a NHS Trust
> >> specialising in mental health. The law was brought very firmly
> >> to everyone's attention relating to those who cared for
> >> vulnerable adults and relationships. I cannot quote the act but
> >> as I recall anyone who could be considered a carer who has a
> >> relationship with someone they might give care to commits a
> >> criminal offence. Hopefully someone with real knowledge or time
> >> to google will be along soon.
> >
> > Is the lady actually registered as a vulnerable adult? If it just
> > your view that she could be seen as such, then I'd say keep well
> > out of it.
> >
>
> Vulnerability is not AFAIK registered. In any case, someone with a
> significant mental illness is inevitably regarded as vulnerable in
> respect of their relationship to those caring for them.
>
Should Stephen Fry be classed as a vulnerable adult?
My stepfather was (as we called it then) a manic depressive, and I've
known several people over the years that have suffered from depression
and had treatment from either their GP or in one case a psychiatric
outpatients clinic. They all had full time jobs and would have been
astounded if they'd been told they could be viewed as vulnerable adults
whose personal lives were anyone else's concern.
> Another consideration is that even if the relationship in question
> is not exploitative its existence may be distressing or threatening
> to other people in the group with mental illness who may fear that
> they are vulnerable to exploitation by carers if this sort of thing
> goes on.
>
the club as staff and one as a volunteer.
> As an old person distressed by growing political correctness I want
> to say "mind your own business" to the OP, but I fear this may not
> be the right answer.
Walt
Dec 7, 2011, 8:05:02 AM12/7/11
to
pete <tur...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0c2td79n7v7b3auif...@4ax.com:
Any, and I mean ANY, person who looks after, is responsible for or is in
a position of trust must NOT form a physical, emotional, psychological
relationship with any vulnerable person in their care.
Any person who works in the field of children and vulnerablew adults
knows this full well.
Any teacher, carer, social worker etc who abuses or *seems to abuse* a
vulnerable adult or a child must be removed from their position of trust
immediately.
There are no if and buts, there are no caveats like "she has lucid
times" or "she is old enough to have sex". If a person is in a
position of trust then any sort of personal relationship is not only a
possible criminal offence but is a total dereliction of their duty of
care.
Walt
news:0c2td79n7v7b3auif...@4ax.com:
a position of trust must NOT form a physical, emotional, psychological
relationship with any vulnerable person in their care.
Any person who works in the field of children and vulnerablew adults
knows this full well.
Any teacher, carer, social worker etc who abuses or *seems to abuse* a
vulnerable adult or a child must be removed from their position of trust
immediately.
There are no if and buts, there are no caveats like "she has lucid
times" or "she is old enough to have sex". If a person is in a
position of trust then any sort of personal relationship is not only a
possible criminal offence but is a total dereliction of their duty of
care.
Walt
Message has been deleted
Sara
Dec 7, 2011, 11:15:03 AM12/7/11
to
In article <Xns9FB484CA6C...@216.196.109.145>,
responsibility of, any one at the club. She is a voluntary worker there.
opinion that she could/should be classed as a vulnerable adult.
Walt <wa...@walt.com> wrote:
> pete <tur...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:0c2td79n7v7b3auif...@4ax.com:
>
> > Many here know who I am and I am posting this way to avoid a poster
> > who monitors my name on google groups.
> >
> > I belong to several disabled clubs.
> >
> > We have volunteers who are disabled and can be classed as vulnerable
> > adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a lady about 50
> > years old who is usually having an episode. She is classed as bi-polar
> > and a manic depressive but reasonable sensible when not having an
> > episode. The senior member of staff is sleeping with her but I feel
> > certain this is improper.
> >
> > I know this is not acceptable behaviour but it seems to have been
> > accepted by other members who probably dare not mention anything for
> > fear of being cold shouldered or worse.
> >
> > Am I being too sensitive? If not what can I do about it?
>
> Any, and I mean ANY, person who looks after, is responsible for or is in
> a position of trust must NOT form a physical, emotional, psychological
> relationship with any vulnerable person in their care.
> Any person who works in the field of children and vulnerablew adults
> knows this full well.
> Any teacher, carer, social worker etc who abuses or *seems to abuse* a
> vulnerable adult or a child must be removed from their position of trust
> immediately.
As I understand it, the woman in question was not in the care of, or the
> pete <tur...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:0c2td79n7v7b3auif...@4ax.com:
>
> > Many here know who I am and I am posting this way to avoid a poster
> > who monitors my name on google groups.
> >
> > I belong to several disabled clubs.
> >
> > We have volunteers who are disabled and can be classed as vulnerable
> > adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a lady about 50
> > years old who is usually having an episode. She is classed as bi-polar
> > and a manic depressive but reasonable sensible when not having an
> > episode. The senior member of staff is sleeping with her but I feel
> > certain this is improper.
> >
> > I know this is not acceptable behaviour but it seems to have been
> > accepted by other members who probably dare not mention anything for
> > fear of being cold shouldered or worse.
> >
> > Am I being too sensitive? If not what can I do about it?
>
> Any, and I mean ANY, person who looks after, is responsible for or is in
> a position of trust must NOT form a physical, emotional, psychological
> relationship with any vulnerable person in their care.
> Any person who works in the field of children and vulnerablew adults
> knows this full well.
> Any teacher, carer, social worker etc who abuses or *seems to abuse* a
> vulnerable adult or a child must be removed from their position of trust
> immediately.
responsibility of, any one at the club. She is a voluntary worker there.
>
> There are no if and buts, there are no caveats like "she has lucid
> times" or "she is old enough to have sex". If a person is in a
> position of trust then any sort of personal relationship is not only a
> possible criminal offence but is a total dereliction of their duty of
> care.
>
As far as I can see from what's been written so far, it is only the OP's
> There are no if and buts, there are no caveats like "she has lucid
> times" or "she is old enough to have sex". If a person is in a
> position of trust then any sort of personal relationship is not only a
> possible criminal offence but is a total dereliction of their duty of
> care.
>
opinion that she could/should be classed as a vulnerable adult.
Message has been deleted
The Todal
Dec 7, 2011, 12:30:02 PM12/7/11
to
Janet wrote:
> In article <f3eud7t71vskpdbpv...@4ax.com>,
> aferm...@gmail.com says...
And the often repeated phrase "mind your own business" is applicable
whenever we suspect that a child is being beaten in the house next door or
an old person is being left in sodden clothing all day because the staff in
a hospital or care home don't have the time to sort it out. If we all
minded our own business a lot of suffering would never be stopped, and a lot
of abusers would get away with murder.
However, I still think that the only option (other than minding one's own
business) is to contact social services, set out the full picture and leave
it to them to take whatever action they think best. I don't think I have
seen any other suggestions.
> In article <f3eud7t71vskpdbpv...@4ax.com>,
> aferm...@gmail.com says...
>
>> We have strict rules about not being alone with any vulnerable people
>> and these rules are being flouted by someone who should know better.
>> I don't want this to happen again.
>
> You also need to consider that she may not be his only victim.
>> We have strict rules about not being alone with any vulnerable people
>> and these rules are being flouted by someone who should know better.
>> I don't want this to happen again.
>
And the often repeated phrase "mind your own business" is applicable
whenever we suspect that a child is being beaten in the house next door or
an old person is being left in sodden clothing all day because the staff in
a hospital or care home don't have the time to sort it out. If we all
minded our own business a lot of suffering would never be stopped, and a lot
of abusers would get away with murder.
However, I still think that the only option (other than minding one's own
business) is to contact social services, set out the full picture and leave
it to them to take whatever action they think best. I don't think I have
seen any other suggestions.
Hugh - Was Invisible
Dec 7, 2011, 1:05:02 PM12/7/11
to
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:15:03 -0000, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
I have 30 plus year history of intermittent anxiety and depression. I
would say it resulted from excessive stress and no effective policy for
dealing with it. My employer's chartered psychologist eventually said
there were no roles I could do there even with every reasonable
adjustment. After 36 years my employer and I agreed mutually acceptable
terms for me to retire early. At times I was undoubtedly vulnerable and at
times not. My employers had me recorded as a DDA (Disability
Discrimination Act) case
From time to time when not well I would visit drop in centres to get me
out of being morose at home. Often staff and volunteers had histories of
being unwell themselves which may or may not have fully resolved.
The OP's position is difficult but the situation should be brought to the
attention of a suitable person in the organisation. Can this not be done
anonymously?
wrote:
would say it resulted from excessive stress and no effective policy for
dealing with it. My employer's chartered psychologist eventually said
there were no roles I could do there even with every reasonable
adjustment. After 36 years my employer and I agreed mutually acceptable
terms for me to retire early. At times I was undoubtedly vulnerable and at
times not. My employers had me recorded as a DDA (Disability
Discrimination Act) case
From time to time when not well I would visit drop in centres to get me
out of being morose at home. Often staff and volunteers had histories of
being unwell themselves which may or may not have fully resolved.
The OP's position is difficult but the situation should be brought to the
attention of a suitable person in the organisation. Can this not be done
anonymously?
Percy Picacity
Dec 7, 2011, 2:05:02 PM12/7/11
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:saramerriman-8F6C...@news.individual.net:
I have to admit that I did not pick up first time round that the
first putative victim was a volunteer rather than merely a client.
On reflection though, I still think that the fact that this is a
charity serving people with mental illness, where volunteering may
include a therapeutic purpose, plus the fact the volunteer was a
subordinate make the senior staff member's conduct unacceptable. I
see that this does infringe the autonomy of the volunteer, but we
seem willing to do this nowadays: for instance, a 17 year old
school student is not legally permitted to have a sexual
relationship with his or her schoolteacher.
--
Percy Picacity
news:saramerriman-8F6C...@news.individual.net:
first putative victim was a volunteer rather than merely a client.
On reflection though, I still think that the fact that this is a
charity serving people with mental illness, where volunteering may
include a therapeutic purpose, plus the fact the volunteer was a
subordinate make the senior staff member's conduct unacceptable. I
see that this does infringe the autonomy of the volunteer, but we
seem willing to do this nowadays: for instance, a 17 year old
school student is not legally permitted to have a sexual
relationship with his or her schoolteacher.
--
Percy Picacity
Message has been deleted
Sara
Dec 7, 2011, 4:15:12 PM12/7/11
to
In article <MPG.2949d30b7...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <saramerriman-BEDA...@news.individual.net>,
> sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> the job description of the member of staff?
>
Nope, I'm going purely by what the OP wrote.
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <saramerriman-BEDA...@news.individual.net>,
> sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
> > Neither of the participants in the affair were clients, one worked for
> > the club as staff and one as a volunteer.
>
> Do you know the nature of the "club", what body runs it and why, or
> > Neither of the participants in the affair were clients, one worked for
> > the club as staff and one as a volunteer.
>
> the job description of the member of staff?
>
Nope, I'm going purely by what the OP wrote.
Sara
Dec 7, 2011, 4:20:03 PM12/7/11
to
In article <MPG.2949ad33...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <f3eud7t71vskpdbpv...@4ax.com>,
> aferm...@gmail.com says...
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <f3eud7t71vskpdbpv...@4ax.com>,
> aferm...@gmail.com says...
>
> > We have strict rules about not being alone with any vulnerable people
> > and these rules are being flouted by someone who should know better. I
> > don't want this to happen again.
>
> > We have strict rules about not being alone with any vulnerable people
> > and these rules are being flouted by someone who should know better. I
> > don't want this to happen again.
>
> You also need to consider that she may not be his only victim.
>
Victim is a little strong, don't you think?
>
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
arthur
Dec 7, 2011, 7:20:03 PM12/7/11
to
arthur
Dec 7, 2011, 7:15:03 PM12/7/11
to
have to act. What bothers me is I have also allowed this situation to
continue. I should have acted before. Many thanks all.
arthur
Dec 7, 2011, 7:10:04 PM12/7/11
to
folks as volunteers as well as clients. Some are only unwell
periodically but all should be protected when they are vulnerable I
believe.
arthur
Dec 7, 2011, 7:10:03 PM12/7/11
to
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:00:05 +0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
I nearly welcomed the "mind your own business" remark as it would give
me an excuse to walk away. The problem isn't only the mental fragility
of the person but that another senior chap has followed his example. I
really don't get it as I hope any members knowing of child
exploitation would automatically stand up and make a complaint. These
ladies are child like sometimes yet nobody says a word. I mentioned my
concerns to another lady volunteer and she also expressed concern and
disgust but as she enjoys what she does she kept quiet just as I
have:-( I am ashamed I have held back but now I have to do something
and I will take the advice offered thanks.
wrote:
me an excuse to walk away. The problem isn't only the mental fragility
of the person but that another senior chap has followed his example. I
really don't get it as I hope any members knowing of child
exploitation would automatically stand up and make a complaint. These
ladies are child like sometimes yet nobody says a word. I mentioned my
concerns to another lady volunteer and she also expressed concern and
disgust but as she enjoys what she does she kept quiet just as I
have:-( I am ashamed I have held back but now I have to do something
and I will take the advice offered thanks.
Sara
Dec 7, 2011, 11:05:03 PM12/7/11
to
In article <MPG.2949eebb4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <saramerriman-A729...@news.individual.net>,
> sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> I'm going by what the OP wrote.
>
> Janet
So am I, and I don't see a victim here. It is only the OP's opinion that
the woman is a vulnerable adult sometimes.
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <saramerriman-A729...@news.individual.net>,
> sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
> Janet
So am I, and I don't see a victim here. It is only the OP's opinion that
the woman is a vulnerable adult sometimes.
Sara
Dec 7, 2011, 11:10:03 PM12/7/11
to
In article <MPG.2949ecb83...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <saramerriman-F507...@news.individual.net>,
> sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> So we don't know if the staff leader's responsibility included a
> caring/support role for mentally ill volunteers in the group.
>
> Janet
No. We also don't know if this woman is mentally disabled or if that is
just the OP's opinion.
Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <saramerriman-F507...@news.individual.net>,
> sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> caring/support role for mentally ill volunteers in the group.
>
> Janet
No. We also don't know if this woman is mentally disabled or if that is
just the OP's opinion.
Dr Zoidberg
Dec 8, 2011, 3:00:03 AM12/8/11
to
"pete" <tur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c2td79n7v7b3auif...@4ax.com...
> Many here know who I am and I am posting this way to avoid a poster
> who monitors my name on google groups.
>
Then perhaps you shouldn't have started posting in this thread as Peter
> who monitors my name on google groups.
>
Turtill, and then swapped to being Arthur part way through
--
Alex
Chris R
Dec 8, 2011, 3:40:02 AM12/8/11
to
>
>
> "Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message news:jbpqpf$dv8$1...@dont-email.me...
> > Many here know who I am and I am posting this way to avoid a poster
> > who monitors my name on google groups.
> >
> xxxxxx, and then swapped to being Arthur part way through
>
That is inappropriate. If a poster chooses to post under a pseudonym, even
if his real identity is apparent to some, it is discourteous, to say the
least, to attempt to "out" him.
--
Chris R
Roland Perry
Dec 8, 2011, 6:25:02 AM12/8/11
to
In message <vd2dnSw0b7kI633T...@brightview.co.uk>, at
08:40:02 on Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
--
Roland Perry
08:40:02 on Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>If a poster chooses to post under a pseudonym, even if his real
>identity is apparent to some, it is discourteous, to say the least, to
>attempt to "out" him.
I fear that in this case the OP outed himself in his original posting.
>identity is apparent to some, it is discourteous, to say the least, to
>attempt to "out" him.
--
Roland Perry
Kate XXXXXX
Dec 8, 2011, 6:35:02 AM12/8/11
to
On 08/12/2011 00:15, arthur wrote:
>>> I am of the opinion this is illegal too but the person involved is
>>> very senior in the organisation.
>>
>> I would say that made the offense worse rather than better.
>
> Yes of course. I didn't really need to ask this question as I knew I
> have to act. What bothers me is I have also allowed this situation to
> continue. I should have acted before. Many thanks all.
It upsets all sorts of folk you didn't think it would affect when you
>>> I am of the opinion this is illegal too but the person involved is
>>> very senior in the organisation.
>>
>> I would say that made the offense worse rather than better.
>
> Yes of course. I didn't really need to ask this question as I knew I
> have to act. What bothers me is I have also allowed this situation to
> continue. I should have acted before. Many thanks all.
are the whistle-blower. Be prepared for fall-out. But also be assured
that you have my support, however useless that might be right now.
Virtual tea and sticky buns on offer: real ones next time you are down
in Kent.
Kate XXXXXX
Dec 8, 2011, 6:35:10 AM12/8/11
to
these people, volunteers or paid employees, and however willing his
partner may have been, this is still a betrayal of that trust and a
dereliction of his duty of care.
Man at B&Q
Dec 8, 2011, 6:05:02 AM12/8/11
to
You are effectively barring any vulnerable person from forming a
relationship on the grounds they need protecting.
MBQ
Martin
Dec 8, 2011, 8:10:04 AM12/8/11
to
On 08/12/2011 11:35, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> As their manager, the uber-boss is still in a position of trust over
> these people, volunteers or paid employees, and however willing his
> partner may have been, this is still a betrayal of that trust and a
> dereliction of his duty of care.
That's a bit extreme isn't it? Are you really for banning workplace
> As their manager, the uber-boss is still in a position of trust over
> these people, volunteers or paid employees, and however willing his
> partner may have been, this is still a betrayal of that trust and a
> dereliction of his duty of care.
relationships. The workplace is the most common place to meet people to
have relationships . I know some US companies try to ban this kind of
thing but it doesn't stop it.
Assuming they are both adults it's hardly a betrayal of trust for a
manager to go having an affair or other relationship with someone who
works for him/her. Even a manager's PA is quite able to make up his mind
whether or not he wants to play doctors with his hot boss.
Martin Bonner
Dec 8, 2011, 8:45:03 AM12/8/11
to
On 8 Dec, 08:40, "Chris R" <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Dr Zoidberg" wrote in messagenews:jbpqpf$dv8$1...@dont-email.me...
But if a poster clearly thinks they have posted under a pseudonym, but
have actually posted under their real (*) name, it doesn't seem
discourteous to warn them of this.
(*) or at least the name they (+) commonly use on Usenet
(+) or at least the name that somebody who claims a similar background
to that being claimed by the OP, commonly uses on Usenet.
> > "Dr Zoidberg" wrote in messagenews:jbpqpf$dv8$1...@dont-email.me...
have actually posted under their real (*) name, it doesn't seem
discourteous to warn them of this.
(*) or at least the name they (+) commonly use on Usenet
(+) or at least the name that somebody who claims a similar background
to that being claimed by the OP, commonly uses on Usenet.
Message has been deleted
Man at B&Q
Dec 8, 2011, 8:20:03 AM12/8/11
to
responsible for setting and appraising performance targets for the
other. Such relationships cannot be banned or legislated against, but
any responsible company will work around it in some way.
MBQ
Kate XXXXXX
Dec 8, 2011, 8:55:02 AM12/8/11
to
relationship with someone who is in your direct line of management, up
or down. There are too many opportunities for failure built into such a
situation. A truly professional manager would never let such a
situation develop.
A relationship with someone in another department that you don't work
with directly, fine. Someone in your own line of management? No. Both
the police and the armed forces recognize this and post people in
relationships to different areas of work and different parts of the
management structure to avoid complications. Thus Little Sis and BiL,
both in the Met (now retired), were in different branches (he in armed
response, she in the CID). They would never have been posted to the
same area, never mind the same station.
In several schools where there was one of a partnership in the
management team and one further down the scale, the manager was rarely
the other's line manager. Where they were, it tended to lead to massive
failure somewhere along the line: inappropriate promotions and the like,
thoroughly resented by the rest of the staff. The kids tended to pick
up on it and make adverse comments. Bad for morale in both kids and
staff, bad for exam results...
Working in different schools within the same LEA tended to be much
better. Mind you, I could never have lived with another teacher. We
are all far too big control freaks! ;)
Sara
Dec 8, 2011, 10:05:03 AM12/8/11
to
In article <PMydnbltN-vBPX3T...@brightview.co.uk>,
So nobody should ever enter into a relationship with a colleague unless
they are on an exactly equal basis?
they are on an exactly equal basis?
Sara
Dec 8, 2011, 10:10:17 AM12/8/11
to
In article
<d132d2b5-ebb5-42fa...@f36g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
Hardly a matter for calling in social services.
<d132d2b5-ebb5-42fa...@f36g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
Ian Jackson
Dec 8, 2011, 11:05:03 AM12/8/11
to
In article <208f3855-da98-414d...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
(And, if posted, it should IMO not be approved by the moderators.)
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>But if a poster clearly thinks they have posted under a pseudonym, but
>have actually posted under their real (*) name, it doesn't seem
>discourteous to warn them of this.
Such a warning should be sent by email.
>But if a poster clearly thinks they have posted under a pseudonym, but
>have actually posted under their real (*) name, it doesn't seem
>discourteous to warn them of this.
(And, if posted, it should IMO not be approved by the moderators.)
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Martin
Dec 8, 2011, 2:15:03 PM12/8/11
to
On 08/12/2011 17:50, Janet wrote:
> In article<d0c3dada-13ff-43f2-bc6a-ffe1f1c498a0
> @v24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, manat...@hotmail.com says...
> You misunderstood. For professional carers and service providers it's a
> criminal offence to have sexual relations with vulnerable people they are
> employed to support/supervise/care for.
Which isn't happening in this case. One is a manager the other a
volunteer at a service provider.
The OP might well diagnose me as being a "vulnerable person" (there are
reasons I am not going to into here) and I do volunteer at a service
provider too. If anyone reported to the authorities I was having an
affair with the centre manager I'd be VERY unhappy about the fact.
The OP isn't describing an affair between a member of the service
provider and a client, but between two members of staff one of whom
happens to be a volunteer.
I would go along with the advice given by Steve
> In article<d0c3dada-13ff-43f2-bc6a-ffe1f1c498a0
> @v24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, manat...@hotmail.com says...
> criminal offence to have sexual relations with vulnerable people they are
> employed to support/supervise/care for.
Which isn't happening in this case. One is a manager the other a
volunteer at a service provider.
The OP might well diagnose me as being a "vulnerable person" (there are
reasons I am not going to into here) and I do volunteer at a service
provider too. If anyone reported to the authorities I was having an
affair with the centre manager I'd be VERY unhappy about the fact.
The OP isn't describing an affair between a member of the service
provider and a client, but between two members of staff one of whom
happens to be a volunteer.
I would go along with the advice given by Steve
Stuart A. Bronstein
Dec 8, 2011, 4:00:04 PM12/8/11
to
Martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
> Assuming they are both adults it's hardly a betrayal of trust
> for a manager to go having an affair or other relationship with
> someone who works for him/her.
The problem is that, on the part of the subordinate, it may not be
> Assuming they are both adults it's hardly a betrayal of trust
> for a manager to go having an affair or other relationship with
> someone who works for him/her.
actually consentual of the subordinate fears for her job if she
doesn't go along.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Dec 8, 2011, 4:05:03 PM12/8/11
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> So nobody should ever enter into a relationship with a colleague
> unless they are on an exactly equal basis?
It's ok as long as on doesn't have sufficient power to coerce
> So nobody should ever enter into a relationship with a colleague
> unless they are on an exactly equal basis?
cooperation by threatening the other's job.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
steve robinson
Dec 8, 2011, 4:35:02 PM12/8/11
to
Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> On 08/12/2011 00:10, arthur wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:15:03 +0000, "Man at B&Q"
> ><manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Dec 6, 10:45 pm, Percy Picacity<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >>>"steve robinson"<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote
> innews:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > We have volunteers who are disabled and can be classed as
> > > > vulnerable
> > > > > > adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a
> > > > > > lady about
> > > > 50
> > > >
> > > > This is actually very difficult. If the club provides any
> > > > kind of social support to the members then the the position
> > > > of the senior member of staff is questionable.
> > >
> > > The way I read it, the lady in question is a volunteer, i.e.,
> On 08/12/2011 00:10, arthur wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:15:03 +0000, "Man at B&Q"
> ><manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Dec 6, 10:45 pm, Percy Picacity<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >>>"steve robinson"<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote
> innews:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > We have volunteers who are disabled and can be classed as
> > > > vulnerable
> > > > > > adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a
> > > > > > lady about
> > > > 50
> > > >
> > > > This is actually very difficult. If the club provides any
> > > > kind of social support to the members then the the position
> > > > of the senior member of staff is questionable.
> > >
> > > effectively part of the care team not one being cared for.
> > > Unless there is a breach of rules about conflict of interest
> > > (In my employers case, e.g., managers may not form
> > > relationships with those under their direct supervision) the OP
> > > should keep his nose out.
> >
> > This chap is much more than a manager, much more. We have disabled
> > folks as volunteers as well as clients. Some are only unwell
> > periodically but all should be protected when they are vulnerable
> > I believe.
>
> As their manager, the uber-boss is still in a position of trust
> over these people, volunteers or paid employees, and however
> willing his partner may have been, this is still a betrayal of that
> trust and a dereliction of his duty of care.
Or it could just be like any other relationship between collegues one
> > > Unless there is a breach of rules about conflict of interest
> > > (In my employers case, e.g., managers may not form
> > > relationships with those under their direct supervision) the OP
> > > should keep his nose out.
> >
> > This chap is much more than a manager, much more. We have disabled
> > folks as volunteers as well as clients. Some are only unwell
> > periodically but all should be protected when they are vulnerable
> > I believe.
>
> As their manager, the uber-boss is still in a position of trust
> over these people, volunteers or paid employees, and however
> willing his partner may have been, this is still a betrayal of that
> trust and a dereliction of his duty of care.
who hapens to be bi polar.
Kate XXXXXX
Dec 8, 2011, 5:35:01 PM12/8/11
to
different branches, and the one had no direct management path to the
other, and both were professional and discreet within the workplace,
then fine.
If people are noticing what's going on, and have become concerned for
the health, safety, well-being, or career of either, then there is cause
for concern, and the senior HR management needs to be aware so they can
take appropriate steps.
steve robinson
Dec 8, 2011, 4:40:03 PM12/8/11
to
Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> On 08/12/2011 13:10, Martin wrote:
> > On 08/12/2011 11:35, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> >
> > > As their manager, the uber-boss is still in a position of trust
> > > over these people, volunteers or paid employees, and however
> > > willing his partner may have been, this is still a betrayal of
> > > that trust and a dereliction of his duty of care.
> >
> > That's a bit extreme isn't it? Are you really for banning
> > workplace relationships. The workplace is the most common place
> > to meet people to have relationships . I know some US companies
> > try to ban this kind of thing but it doesn't stop it.
> >
> > Assuming they are both adults it's hardly a betrayal of trust for
> > a manager to go having an affair or other relationship with
> > someone who works for him/her. Even a manager's PA is quite able
> > to make up his mind whether or not he wants to play doctors with
> > his hot boss.
>
> No, but it is usually against company/organization policy to have a
> relationship with someone who is in your direct line of management,
> up or down. There are too many opportunities for failure built
> into such a situation. A truly professional manager would never
> let such a situation develop.
>
I have lost count of the managers, directors, business owners who
> On 08/12/2011 13:10, Martin wrote:
> > On 08/12/2011 11:35, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> >
> > > As their manager, the uber-boss is still in a position of trust
> > > over these people, volunteers or paid employees, and however
> > > willing his partner may have been, this is still a betrayal of
> > > that trust and a dereliction of his duty of care.
> >
> > That's a bit extreme isn't it? Are you really for banning
> > workplace relationships. The workplace is the most common place
> > to meet people to have relationships . I know some US companies
> > try to ban this kind of thing but it doesn't stop it.
> >
> > Assuming they are both adults it's hardly a betrayal of trust for
> > a manager to go having an affair or other relationship with
> > someone who works for him/her. Even a manager's PA is quite able
> > to make up his mind whether or not he wants to play doctors with
> > his hot boss.
>
> No, but it is usually against company/organization policy to have a
> relationship with someone who is in your direct line of management,
> up or down. There are too many opportunities for failure built
> into such a situation. A truly professional manager would never
> let such a situation develop.
>
have married the secretary that i come in contact with , its life
unfortunatly from the boss who fancies a tumble with the young
secretary , the office hottie who throws herself at the boss to the
office cougar
steve robinson
Dec 8, 2011, 4:35:02 PM12/8/11
to
boss, the 40 something office manager and the new bloke in accounts
or any variation on that . Its life
Martin
Dec 8, 2011, 4:15:03 PM12/8/11
to
On 08/12/2011 21:00, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> Martin<use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Assuming they are both adults it's hardly a betrayal of trust
>> for a manager to go having an affair or other relationship with
>> someone who works for him/her.
>
> The problem is that, on the part of the subordinate, it may not be
> actually consentual of the subordinate fears for her job if she
> doesn't go along.
Agreed, but that's a case for the ET not the police/social
> Martin<use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Assuming they are both adults it's hardly a betrayal of trust
>> for a manager to go having an affair or other relationship with
>> someone who works for him/her.
>
> The problem is that, on the part of the subordinate, it may not be
> actually consentual of the subordinate fears for her job if she
> doesn't go along.
services/general do-gooders.
Message has been deleted
Hugh - Was Invisible
Dec 8, 2011, 6:25:02 PM12/8/11
to
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:10:02 -0000, Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <4ee10c92$0$2494$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, use...@etiqa.co.uk
> says...
> In some service provisions for mental illness, there's a very fine
> line
> between volunteer and service user. Some recovering service users may
> acquire a "volunteer" role as part of preparing them for employment or
> independent living. But so far as the staff obligation as careres go,
> they
> remain vulnerable
>
>
>
> I was paid staff at a drop-in centre for people with mental health
> problems (a very wide spectrum). The manager of which got sacked for
> crossing the line into sexual behaviour with service users, some of whom
> were also
>
>
Agreed. I too have come across volunteers who were basically clients who
knew how the place worked well enough to help out. A LOT of people working
in mental health have been service users themselves and especially
volunteers may well still be vulnerable. There will be some volunteers who
are clearly well but others who are not and with whom sexual relations by
someone with responsibility for caring or managing would be a criminal
offence under the Mental Health Act (1983?).
> In article <4ee10c92$0$2494$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, use...@etiqa.co.uk
> says...
> line
> between volunteer and service user. Some recovering service users may
> acquire a "volunteer" role as part of preparing them for employment or
> independent living. But so far as the staff obligation as careres go,
> they
> remain vulnerable
>
>
>
> I was paid staff at a drop-in centre for people with mental health
> problems (a very wide spectrum). The manager of which got sacked for
> crossing the line into sexual behaviour with service users, some of whom
> were also
>
>
Agreed. I too have come across volunteers who were basically clients who
knew how the place worked well enough to help out. A LOT of people working
in mental health have been service users themselves and especially
volunteers may well still be vulnerable. There will be some volunteers who
are clearly well but others who are not and with whom sexual relations by
someone with responsibility for caring or managing would be a criminal
offence under the Mental Health Act (1983?).
Martin
Dec 8, 2011, 6:45:02 PM12/8/11
to
On 08/12/2011 21:10, Janet wrote:
> In article<4ee10c92$0$2494$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, use...@etiqa.co.uk
> In article<4ee10c92$0$2494$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, use...@etiqa.co.uk
> In some service provisions for mental illness, there's a very fine line
> between volunteer and service user. Some recovering service users may
> acquire a "volunteer" role as part of preparing them for employment or
> independent living. But so far as the staff obligation as careres go, they
> remain vulnerable
> I was paid staff at a drop-in centre for people with mental health
> problems (a very wide spectrum). The manager of which got sacked for
> crossing the line into sexual behaviour with service users, some of whom
> between volunteer and service user. Some recovering service users may
> acquire a "volunteer" role as part of preparing them for employment or
> independent living. But so far as the staff obligation as careres go, they
> remain vulnerable
> I was paid staff at a drop-in centre for people with mental health
> problems (a very wide spectrum). The manager of which got sacked for
> were also
Service user, thanks I forgot the right words.
Well one organization I volunteer at I am both a volunteer and a service
user and (as I have said) some might consider me to be a vulnerable
person (yes mental issues). I don't consider myself as being one.
I'd feel inclined to punch someone on the nose and challenge her to the
"dance of the wet fish" if she tried to interfere in my personal life
with a member of staff (maybe my caseworker excepted, but then again
there is a certain amount of vulnerability I could exploit there,
sometimes women like that in a man - not that I would of course)
I'm not saying there is a correct answer to this, but I wouldn't
appreciate someone poking into where I don't consider it belongs. This
doesn't answer the OPs question, but it does expand on it - maybe. We're
not all stupid and might actually know our own mind even if we are
volunteers and have areas in our lives we're not good at handling.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Stuart A. Bronstein
Dec 8, 2011, 9:00:05 PM12/8/11
to
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:
> being a volunteer and presumably trying to reintegrate
> herself into mainstream life. What could be more
> reintegrating than a loving relationship? It seems to me
> that this question is treating this supposedly vulnerable person
> as just another case devoid of feelings worthy of consideration.
So it's ok to coerce a subordinate into a sexual relationship under
threat of termination as long as the subordinate is a volunteer?
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > So nobody should ever enter into a relationship with a colleague
>> > unless they are on an exactly equal basis?
>>
>> It's ok as long as on doesn't have sufficient power to coerce
>> cooperation by threatening the other's job.
>
> I fail to see the relevance of this, the person in question
>> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > So nobody should ever enter into a relationship with a colleague
>> > unless they are on an exactly equal basis?
>>
>> It's ok as long as on doesn't have sufficient power to coerce
>> cooperation by threatening the other's job.
>
> being a volunteer and presumably trying to reintegrate
> herself into mainstream life. What could be more
> reintegrating than a loving relationship? It seems to me
> that this question is treating this supposedly vulnerable person
> as just another case devoid of feelings worthy of consideration.
So it's ok to coerce a subordinate into a sexual relationship under
threat of termination as long as the subordinate is a volunteer?
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Dec 8, 2011, 9:00:14 PM12/8/11
to
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:
> Indeed. Is the person in question detained under a section of
> the Mental Health Act for her own protection? If not, she is a
> private citizen subject to no restrictions. I think her rights
> are being largely disregarded here.
And you think her rights are being supported by allowing someone to
coerce her into an unwanted sexual relationship under threat of
termination?
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> Indeed. Is the person in question detained under a section of
> the Mental Health Act for her own protection? If not, she is a
> private citizen subject to no restrictions. I think her rights
> are being largely disregarded here.
And you think her rights are being supported by allowing someone to
coerce her into an unwanted sexual relationship under threat of
termination?
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Dec 8, 2011, 9:05:02 PM12/8/11
to
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:
> It seems to me that this whole question hinges on the
> exact status of the "abused person", vulnerable or not?
> Who is to say, other than her psychiatrist?
No, the whole question is, what are appropriate guidelines for the
protection of people in general.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> It seems to me that this whole question hinges on the
> exact status of the "abused person", vulnerable or not?
> Who is to say, other than her psychiatrist?
No, the whole question is, what are appropriate guidelines for the
protection of people in general.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Dec 8, 2011, 9:05:10 PM12/8/11
to
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> It happens every day in every office wether its the secretary
> and her boss, the 40 something office manager and the new bloke
> in accounts or any variation on that . Its life
Of course. And as long as there is no coersion and the relationship
> It happens every day in every office wether its the secretary
> and her boss, the 40 something office manager and the new bloke
> in accounts or any variation on that . Its life
is friendly, then all is well. But if it ends badly it could disrupt
the business, as well leave it open to the threat of suit for
coersion.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Sara
Dec 9, 2011, 3:00:05 AM12/9/11
to
In article <Xns9FB5840FA6242s...@130.133.4.11>,
The woman being discussed here is a volunteer, not paid help, so isn't
going to lose her livelihood whatever happens.
> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > So nobody should ever enter into a relationship with a colleague
> > unless they are on an exactly equal basis?
>
> It's ok as long as on doesn't have sufficient power to coerce
> cooperation by threatening the other's job.
>
Which is very much a moral, not legal, judgment.
>
> > So nobody should ever enter into a relationship with a colleague
> > unless they are on an exactly equal basis?
>
> It's ok as long as on doesn't have sufficient power to coerce
> cooperation by threatening the other's job.
>
The woman being discussed here is a volunteer, not paid help, so isn't
going to lose her livelihood whatever happens.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Percy Picacity
Dec 9, 2011, 3:45:03 AM12/9/11
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:saramerriman-3EDC...@news.individual.net:
Not directly: but if volunteering in a *mental health charity* is part
of her rehabilitation into paid work in a *less overtly caring
environment* then it may be a setback to her attaining an independent
livelihood.
--
Percy Picacity
news:saramerriman-3EDC...@news.individual.net:
of her rehabilitation into paid work in a *less overtly caring
environment* then it may be a setback to her attaining an independent
livelihood.
--
Percy Picacity
D.M. Procida
Dec 9, 2011, 4:35:02 AM12/9/11
to
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> > The woman being discussed here is a volunteer, not paid help, so
> > isn't going to lose her livelihood whatever happens.
> >
>
> Not directly: but if volunteering in a *mental health charity* is part
> of her rehabilitation into paid work in a *less overtly caring
> environment* then it may be a setback to her attaining an independent
> livelihood.
Also, just because volunteering is unpaid doesn't mean it's not work. It
> > The woman being discussed here is a volunteer, not paid help, so
> > isn't going to lose her livelihood whatever happens.
> >
>
> Not directly: but if volunteering in a *mental health charity* is part
> of her rehabilitation into paid work in a *less overtly caring
> environment* then it may be a setback to her attaining an independent
> livelihood.
can mean as much as a paid job, and in some cases losing it can be as
devastating.
Someone losing their position might not lose their livelihood, but they
could lose an important part of their life, with the contacts, the
routine, the possibilities for further progress, the sense of being part
of an enterprise with other people and so on.
For someone dealing with mental health issues, the loss could be even
more dreadful.
Daniele
Sara
Dec 9, 2011, 5:05:03 AM12/9/11
to
In article <Xns9FB658A5973...@208.90.168.18>,
What rehabilitation? What makes you think she isn't just a volunteer
because she's a good person and decided to help out?
There are wild guesses as to this woman's mental state being bandied
around and the OP hasn't confirmed her exact status.
because she's a good person and decided to help out?
There are wild guesses as to this woman's mental state being bandied
around and the OP hasn't confirmed her exact status.
Sara
Dec 9, 2011, 5:10:03 AM12/9/11
to
In article
<1kc04r2.vob67gdpdffN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
Even the OP has not suggested that this woman was coerced into a
relationship either with the threat of loss of position or otherwise.
<1kc04r2.vob67gdpdffN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
relationship either with the threat of loss of position or otherwise.
The Todal
Dec 9, 2011, 5:15:03 AM12/9/11
to
"Sara" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:saramerriman-6BD2...@news.individual.net...
without infringing her privacy.
If, hypothetically, there are charity volunteers who get involved in a
charity because they know that there are many co-workers or service users
with mental health issues and have an expectation of forming relationships
with them because they are easy to manipulate, then that would be rather
scandalous irrespective of whether one person employs the other or whether
any specific individual has already been labelled by the authorities as a
vulnerable adult. So I don't think it is at all fair to speculate on the
motives of the OP and imply that he is trying to interfere in consensual
relationships.
I think the thread is now getting a bit repetitive but any new angle on the
topic would, as always, be welcome.
D.M. Procida
Dec 9, 2011, 6:15:05 AM12/9/11
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > The woman being discussed here is a volunteer, not paid help, so
> > > > isn't going to lose her livelihood whatever happens.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not directly: but if volunteering in a *mental health charity* is part
> > > of her rehabilitation into paid work in a *less overtly caring
> > > environment* then it may be a setback to her attaining an independent
> > > livelihood.
> >
> > Also, just because volunteering is unpaid doesn't mean it's not work. It
> > can mean as much as a paid job, and in some cases losing it can be as
> > devastating.
> >
> > Someone losing their position might not lose their livelihood, but they
> > could lose an important part of their life, with the contacts, the
> > routine, the possibilities for further progress, the sense of being part
> > of an enterprise with other people and so on.
> >
> > For someone dealing with mental health issues, the loss could be even
> > more dreadful.
> >
> Even the OP has not suggested that this woman was coerced into a
> relationship either with the threat of loss of position or otherwise.
That's true, there's no suggestion of coercion or even of abuse of
> > > > The woman being discussed here is a volunteer, not paid help, so
> > > > isn't going to lose her livelihood whatever happens.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not directly: but if volunteering in a *mental health charity* is part
> > > of her rehabilitation into paid work in a *less overtly caring
> > > environment* then it may be a setback to her attaining an independent
> > > livelihood.
> >
> > Also, just because volunteering is unpaid doesn't mean it's not work. It
> > can mean as much as a paid job, and in some cases losing it can be as
> > devastating.
> >
> > Someone losing their position might not lose their livelihood, but they
> > could lose an important part of their life, with the contacts, the
> > routine, the possibilities for further progress, the sense of being part
> > of an enterprise with other people and so on.
> >
> > For someone dealing with mental health issues, the loss could be even
> > more dreadful.
> >
> Even the OP has not suggested that this woman was coerced into a
> relationship either with the threat of loss of position or otherwise.
influence in this particular case.
Leaving aside this particular case, the fact that someone's work doesn't
earn them their livelihood doesn't mean that questions of power
relations can be ignored.
Daniele
D.M. Procida
Dec 9, 2011, 6:15:04 AM12/9/11
to
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> >> Not directly: but if volunteering in a *mental health charity* is part
> >> of her rehabilitation into paid work in a *less overtly caring
> >> environment* then it may be a setback to her attaining an independent
> >> livelihood.
> >
> > What rehabilitation? What makes you think she isn't just a volunteer
> > because she's a good person and decided to help out?
> >
> > There are wild guesses as to this woman's mental state being bandied
> > around and the OP hasn't confirmed her exact status.
>
> I should think the OP has said as much as he knows or as much as he can say
> without infringing her privacy.
I think he has said a bit more than he should, probably, but not that he
> >> Not directly: but if volunteering in a *mental health charity* is part
> >> of her rehabilitation into paid work in a *less overtly caring
> >> environment* then it may be a setback to her attaining an independent
> >> livelihood.
> >
> > What rehabilitation? What makes you think she isn't just a volunteer
> > because she's a good person and decided to help out?
> >
> > There are wild guesses as to this woman's mental state being bandied
> > around and the OP hasn't confirmed her exact status.
>
> I should think the OP has said as much as he knows or as much as he can say
> without infringing her privacy.
should be criticised for being concerned or wondering whether it might
be right for him to intervene.
> If, hypothetically, there are charity volunteers who get involved in a
> charity because they know that there are many co-workers or service users
> with mental health issues and have an expectation of forming relationships
> with them because they are easy to manipulate, then that would be rather
> scandalous irrespective of whether one person employs the other or whether
> any specific individual has already been labelled by the authorities as a
> vulnerable adult.
mental health services and charities, and of their users and volunteers
who will sometimes be providing and sometimes receiving support, and who
all have different vulnerabilities.
Relations do form, and abuse does occur, and it can be abuse within a
relationship between people who are both vulnerable.
Daniele
Percy Picacity
Dec 9, 2011, 7:15:03 AM12/9/11
to
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote in
news:1kc0966.1pfhvldxrnfgzN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-
juice.co
.uk:
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> If, hypothetically, there are charity volunteers who get involved
>> in a charity because they know that there are many co-workers or
>> service users with mental health issues and have an expectation
>> of forming relationships with them because they are easy to
>> manipulate, then that would be rather scandalous irrespective of
>> whether one person employs the other or whether any specific
>> individual has already been labelled by the authorities as a
>> vulnerable adult.
>
> In practice, it's extremely messy. There are overlapping networks
> of mental health services and charities, and of their users and
> volunteers who will sometimes be providing and sometimes receiving
> support, and who all have different vulnerabilities.
>
> Relations do form, and abuse does occur, and it can be abuse
> within a relationship between people who are both vulnerable.
>
> Daniele
I think the central point is that if you put yourself in a position
where you are responsible (paid or unpaid) for a service offered to
mentally vulnerable people, then immediately a much higher standard
of conduct is legally required from you than if you did not put
yourself in this position. In the case of sexual relations with
clients then we have seen that this is regulated by the criminal
law, but even slightly greyer areas (such as sexual relations with
volunteers from among the potential client group) demand a higher
standard of behaviour than is demanded of the rest of us.
Concretely, if the police investigated this relationship it might
turn up in the manager's next enhanced CRB check even if no crime
was proven. We (I for instance!) may not approve of this, but it is
within the law governing such checks.
People have talked about whether the volunteer is officially a
vulnerable adult. This is a misunderstanding. The volunteer has a
characteristic which could lead to vulnerability. Whether a
particular action amounts to abuse requires investigation, but any
investigation is of a particular action or behaviour by another
person (was it abusive in the context?) not an attempt to classify
the volunteer into a category of "vulnerable" or "not vulnerable"
for all purposes.
--
Percy Picacity
news:1kc0966.1pfhvldxrnfgzN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-
juice.co
.uk:
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> If, hypothetically, there are charity volunteers who get involved
>> in a charity because they know that there are many co-workers or
>> service users with mental health issues and have an expectation
>> of forming relationships with them because they are easy to
>> manipulate, then that would be rather scandalous irrespective of
>> whether one person employs the other or whether any specific
>> individual has already been labelled by the authorities as a
>> vulnerable adult.
>
> In practice, it's extremely messy. There are overlapping networks
> of mental health services and charities, and of their users and
> volunteers who will sometimes be providing and sometimes receiving
> support, and who all have different vulnerabilities.
>
> Relations do form, and abuse does occur, and it can be abuse
> within a relationship between people who are both vulnerable.
>
> Daniele
where you are responsible (paid or unpaid) for a service offered to
mentally vulnerable people, then immediately a much higher standard
of conduct is legally required from you than if you did not put
yourself in this position. In the case of sexual relations with
clients then we have seen that this is regulated by the criminal
law, but even slightly greyer areas (such as sexual relations with
volunteers from among the potential client group) demand a higher
standard of behaviour than is demanded of the rest of us.
Concretely, if the police investigated this relationship it might
turn up in the manager's next enhanced CRB check even if no crime
was proven. We (I for instance!) may not approve of this, but it is
within the law governing such checks.
People have talked about whether the volunteer is officially a
vulnerable adult. This is a misunderstanding. The volunteer has a
characteristic which could lead to vulnerability. Whether a
particular action amounts to abuse requires investigation, but any
investigation is of a particular action or behaviour by another
person (was it abusive in the context?) not an attempt to classify
the volunteer into a category of "vulnerable" or "not vulnerable"
for all purposes.
--
Percy Picacity
Martin Bonner
Dec 9, 2011, 9:05:02 AM12/9/11
to
On Dec 8, 4:05 pm, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <208f3855-da98-414d-9f17-2be031ec4...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Bonner <martinfro...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >But if a poster clearly thinks they have posted under a pseudonym, but
> >have actually posted under their real (*) name, it doesn't seem
> >discourteous to warn them of this.
>
> Such a warning should be sent by email.
Ah, yes. That would have been a better idea.
wrote:
> In article <208f3855-da98-414d-9f17-2be031ec4...@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Bonner <martinfro...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >But if a poster clearly thinks they have posted under a pseudonym, but
> >have actually posted under their real (*) name, it doesn't seem
> >discourteous to warn them of this.
>
> Such a warning should be sent by email.
Ah, yes. That would have been a better idea.
Hugh - Was Invisible
Dec 9, 2011, 11:40:02 AM12/9/11
to
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 23:55:01 -0000, Sn!pe <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
> Hugh - Was Invisible <invi...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> [...]
> not worthy of having her say before the wheels of the state
> juggernaut are set in motion.
>
There are a lot of vulnerable people living with support in the community.
It is not necessary for someone to be sectioned for it to be a criminal
offence to have a sexual relationship with them.
wrote:
> Hugh - Was Invisible <invi...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >> Which isn't happening in this case. One is a manager the other a
>> >> volunteer at a service provider.
>> >
>> > In some service provisions for mental illness, there's a very fine
>> > line
>> > between volunteer and service user. Some recovering service users may
>> > acquire a "volunteer" role as part of preparing them for employment or
>> > independent living. But so far as the staff obligation as careres go,
>> > they
>> > remain vulnerable
>> >
>> > I was paid staff at a drop-in centre for people with mental health
>> > problems (a very wide spectrum). The manager of which got sacked for
>> > crossing the line into sexual behaviour with service users, some of
>> whom
>> > were also
>> >
>> >
>> Agreed. I too have come across volunteers who were basically clients who
>> knew how the place worked well enough to help out. A LOT of people
>> working
>> in mental health have been service users themselves and especially
>> volunteers may well still be vulnerable. There will be some volunteers
>> who
>> are clearly well but others who are not and with whom sexual relations
>> by
>> someone with responsibility for caring or managing would be a criminal
>> offence under the Mental Health Act (1983?).
>
>> >> Which isn't happening in this case. One is a manager the other a
>> >> volunteer at a service provider.
>> >
>> > In some service provisions for mental illness, there's a very fine
>> > line
>> > between volunteer and service user. Some recovering service users may
>> > acquire a "volunteer" role as part of preparing them for employment or
>> > independent living. But so far as the staff obligation as careres go,
>> > they
>> > remain vulnerable
>> >
>> > I was paid staff at a drop-in centre for people with mental health
>> > problems (a very wide spectrum). The manager of which got sacked for
>> > crossing the line into sexual behaviour with service users, some of
>> whom
>> > were also
>> >
>> >
>> Agreed. I too have come across volunteers who were basically clients who
>> knew how the place worked well enough to help out. A LOT of people
>> working
>> in mental health have been service users themselves and especially
>> volunteers may well still be vulnerable. There will be some volunteers
>> who
>> are clearly well but others who are not and with whom sexual relations
>> by
>> someone with responsibility for caring or managing would be a criminal
>> offence under the Mental Health Act (1983?).
>
> Indeed. Is the person in question detained under a section of the
> Mental Health Act for her own protection? If not, she is a private
> citizen subject to no restrictions. I think her rights are being largely
> disregarded here.
>
> In any case she is /not/ just a case to be discussed as if she was
> Mental Health Act for her own protection? If not, she is a private
> citizen subject to no restrictions. I think her rights are being largely
> disregarded here.
>
> not worthy of having her say before the wheels of the state
> juggernaut are set in motion.
>
There are a lot of vulnerable people living with support in the community.
It is not necessary for someone to be sectioned for it to be a criminal
offence to have a sexual relationship with them.
arthur
Dec 9, 2011, 12:50:02 PM12/9/11
to
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:15:03 +0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
>I should think the OP has said as much as he knows or as much as he can say
>without infringing her privacy.
>
>If, hypothetically, there are charity volunteers who get involved in a
>charity because they know that there are many co-workers or service users
>with mental health issues and have an expectation of forming relationships
>with them because they are easy to manipulate, then that would be rather
>scandalous irrespective of whether one person employs the other or whether
>any specific individual has already been labelled by the authorities as a
>vulnerable adult. So I don't think it is at all fair to speculate on the
>motives of the OP and imply that he is trying to interfere in consensual
>relationships.
>
>I think the thread is now getting a bit repetitive but any new angle on the
>topic would, as always, be welcome.
There is nothing I can add without identifying those involved. The
senior person is the absolute senior person in the organisation. There
is nobody above him to regulate his conduct. He is extremely well off
and educated way beyond his intellectual capacity.
The lady is particularly vulnerable as she was searching for a
position in the organisation and she had no qualifications at all and
she was alone,
I had a long meeting with another senior member of the organisation
but he didn't agree with my opinion the relationship was exploitative
or even wrong.
My wife and I are volunteers for many organisations concerned with
disabled people of all ages. We have attended courses that cover this
issue and even this organisation has a rule book that covers this
situation but apparently that only applies when it is needed for other
people.
We know right from wrong and I wrote today to say we have resigned. We
cannot be associated with any organisation that tolerates that kind of
behaviour.
I appreciate many people have given advice on this thread but I think
I knew from the start I would have to take this course and distance my
wife and myself from this but your contributions have all made me
think before giving up something we both truly loved doing.
wrote:
>I should think the OP has said as much as he knows or as much as he can say
>without infringing her privacy.
>
>If, hypothetically, there are charity volunteers who get involved in a
>charity because they know that there are many co-workers or service users
>with mental health issues and have an expectation of forming relationships
>with them because they are easy to manipulate, then that would be rather
>scandalous irrespective of whether one person employs the other or whether
>any specific individual has already been labelled by the authorities as a
>vulnerable adult. So I don't think it is at all fair to speculate on the
>motives of the OP and imply that he is trying to interfere in consensual
>relationships.
>
>I think the thread is now getting a bit repetitive but any new angle on the
>topic would, as always, be welcome.
senior person is the absolute senior person in the organisation. There
is nobody above him to regulate his conduct. He is extremely well off
and educated way beyond his intellectual capacity.
The lady is particularly vulnerable as she was searching for a
position in the organisation and she had no qualifications at all and
she was alone,
I had a long meeting with another senior member of the organisation
but he didn't agree with my opinion the relationship was exploitative
or even wrong.
My wife and I are volunteers for many organisations concerned with
disabled people of all ages. We have attended courses that cover this
issue and even this organisation has a rule book that covers this
situation but apparently that only applies when it is needed for other
people.
We know right from wrong and I wrote today to say we have resigned. We
cannot be associated with any organisation that tolerates that kind of
behaviour.
I appreciate many people have given advice on this thread but I think
I knew from the start I would have to take this course and distance my
wife and myself from this but your contributions have all made me
think before giving up something we both truly loved doing.
Zapp Brannigan
Dec 9, 2011, 2:15:03 PM12/9/11
to
"Sn!pe" <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1kbzkvg.ee2b14mculltN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk...
> please point to the reference.
It's plainly stated in the post you were replying to. 15 lines above this.
Zapp Brannigan
Dec 9, 2011, 2:30:02 PM12/9/11
to
news:1kbyjhk.gnc4f61fwdryxN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk...
> of a hypomanic episode can be promiscuity, to deny a sufferer
> from bipolar disorder a full relationship during their periods of
> remission is an outrageous invasion of privacy.
Nobody is denying her anything.
The question is whether a senior manager should have a sexual relationship
with a vulnerable person who is receiving services from his organisation.
The *legal* answer is almost certainly not. There are numerous laws
relating to abuse of trust, and it is strongly discouraged by every
professional body I can think of.
The OP is right to report his concerns.
> Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are effectively barring any vulnerable person from forming a
>> relationship on the grounds they need protecting.
>
> Hear, hear. While it's true to say that one of the symptoms
>> You are effectively barring any vulnerable person from forming a
>> relationship on the grounds they need protecting.
>
> of a hypomanic episode can be promiscuity, to deny a sufferer
> from bipolar disorder a full relationship during their periods of
> remission is an outrageous invasion of privacy.
Nobody is denying her anything.
The question is whether a senior manager should have a sexual relationship
with a vulnerable person who is receiving services from his organisation.
The *legal* answer is almost certainly not. There are numerous laws
relating to abuse of trust, and it is strongly discouraged by every
professional body I can think of.
The OP is right to report his concerns.
steve robinson
Dec 9, 2011, 5:15:03 PM12/9/11
to
Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> On 08/12/2011 21:35, steve robinson wrote:
> > Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/12/2011 00:10, arthur wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:15:03 +0000, "Man at B&Q"
> >>><manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> >>>>On Dec 6, 10:45 pm, Percy Picacity<k...@under.the.invalid>
> wrote: >>>>>"steve robinson"<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
> wrote
> > > innews:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have volunteers who are disabled and can be
> > > > > > > > classed as
> > > > > > vulnerable
> > > > > > > > adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a
> > > > > > > > lady about
> > > > > > 50
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is actually very difficult. If the club provides any
> > > > > > kind of social support to the members then the the
> > > > > > position of the senior member of staff is questionable.
> > > > >
> > > > > The way I read it, the lady in question is a volunteer,
> > > > > i.e., effectively part of the care team not one being cared
> > > > > for. Unless there is a breach of rules about conflict of
> > > > > interest (In my employers case, e.g., managers may not form
> > > > > relationships with those under their direct supervision)
> > > > > the OP should keep his nose out.
> > > >
> > > > This chap is much more than a manager, much more. We have
> > > > disabled folks as volunteers as well as clients. Some are
> > > > only unwell periodically but all should be protected when
> > > > they are vulnerable I believe.
> > >
> > > As their manager, the uber-boss is still in a position of trust
> > > over these people, volunteers or paid employees, and however
> > > willing his partner may have been, this is still a betrayal of
> > > that trust and a dereliction of his duty of care.
> >
> > Or it could just be like any other relationship between collegues
> > one who hapens to be bi polar.
> >
> The point is that one MANAGES the other. If they were colleagues
> in different branches, and the one had no direct management path to
> the other, and both were professional and discreet within the
> workplace, then fine.
The point is this is a group of volunteers, two of whom have forged
a relationship between consenting adults of similar age , would
Arthur/pete be banging his drum if it was a married couple siblings
etc
>
> If people are noticing what's going on, and have become concerned
> for the health, safety, well-being, or career of either, then there
> is cause for concern, and the senior HR management needs to be
> aware so they can take appropriate steps.
One person is making an issue of this, and if you research the op you
will have a broader undrestanding
> On 08/12/2011 21:35, steve robinson wrote:
> > Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/12/2011 00:10, arthur wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:15:03 +0000, "Man at B&Q"
> >>><manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> >>>>On Dec 6, 10:45 pm, Percy Picacity<k...@under.the.invalid>
> wrote: >>>>>"steve robinson"<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
> wrote
> > > innews:xn0hmjmdi...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have volunteers who are disabled and can be
> > > > > > > > classed as
> > > > > > vulnerable
> > > > > > > > adults when they are having a bad time. One such is a
> > > > > > > > lady about
> > > > > > 50
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is actually very difficult. If the club provides any
> > > > > > kind of social support to the members then the the
> > > > > > position of the senior member of staff is questionable.
> > > > >
> > > > > The way I read it, the lady in question is a volunteer,
> > > > > i.e., effectively part of the care team not one being cared
> > > > > for. Unless there is a breach of rules about conflict of
> > > > > interest (In my employers case, e.g., managers may not form
> > > > > relationships with those under their direct supervision)
> > > > > the OP should keep his nose out.
> > > >
> > > > This chap is much more than a manager, much more. We have
> > > > disabled folks as volunteers as well as clients. Some are
> > > > only unwell periodically but all should be protected when
> > > > they are vulnerable I believe.
> > >
> > > As their manager, the uber-boss is still in a position of trust
> > > over these people, volunteers or paid employees, and however
> > > willing his partner may have been, this is still a betrayal of
> > > that trust and a dereliction of his duty of care.
> >
> > Or it could just be like any other relationship between collegues
> > one who hapens to be bi polar.
> >
> The point is that one MANAGES the other. If they were colleagues
> in different branches, and the one had no direct management path to
> the other, and both were professional and discreet within the
> workplace, then fine.
The point is this is a group of volunteers, two of whom have forged
a relationship between consenting adults of similar age , would
Arthur/pete be banging his drum if it was a married couple siblings
etc
>
> If people are noticing what's going on, and have become concerned
> for the health, safety, well-being, or career of either, then there
> is cause for concern, and the senior HR management needs to be
> aware so they can take appropriate steps.
One person is making an issue of this, and if you research the op you
will have a broader undrestanding
D.M. Procida
Dec 9, 2011, 5:55:02 PM12/9/11
to
steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
<comments deleted>
My apologies, I hit the wrong button in the moderator admin and managed
to accept this instead of rejecting it.
Daniele
<comments deleted>
My apologies, I hit the wrong button in the moderator admin and managed
to accept this instead of rejecting it.
Daniele
the Omrud
Dec 9, 2011, 6:20:02 PM12/9/11
to
On 09/12/2011 19:30, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> "Sn!pe" <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1kbyjhk.gnc4f61fwdryxN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk...
>> Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You are effectively barring any vulnerable person from forming a
>>> relationship on the grounds they need protecting.
>>
>> Hear, hear. While it's true to say that one of the symptoms
>> of a hypomanic episode can be promiscuity, to deny a sufferer
>> from bipolar disorder a full relationship during their periods of
>> remission is an outrageous invasion of privacy.
>
> Nobody is denying her anything.
>
> The question is whether a senior manager should have a sexual
> relationship with a vulnerable person who is receiving services from his
> organisation.
Which is not what the OP described.
>
> "Sn!pe" <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1kbyjhk.gnc4f61fwdryxN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk...
>> Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You are effectively barring any vulnerable person from forming a
>>> relationship on the grounds they need protecting.
>>
>> Hear, hear. While it's true to say that one of the symptoms
>> of a hypomanic episode can be promiscuity, to deny a sufferer
>> from bipolar disorder a full relationship during their periods of
>> remission is an outrageous invasion of privacy.
>
> Nobody is denying her anything.
>
> The question is whether a senior manager should have a sexual
> relationship with a vulnerable person who is receiving services from his
> organisation.
--
David
Stuart A. Bronstein
Dec 9, 2011, 7:45:03 PM12/9/11
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > So nobody should ever enter into a relationship with a
>> > colleague unless they are on an exactly equal basis?
>>
>> It's ok as long as on doesn't have sufficient power to coerce
>> cooperation by threatening the other's job.
>>
> Which is very much a moral, not legal, judgment.
It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with what the facts
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > So nobody should ever enter into a relationship with a
>> > colleague unless they are on an exactly equal basis?
>>
>> It's ok as long as on doesn't have sufficient power to coerce
>> cooperation by threatening the other's job.
>>
> Which is very much a moral, not legal, judgment.
are, and what facts can be proven.
> The woman being discussed here is a volunteer, not paid help, so
> isn't going to lose her livelihood whatever happens.
might be very important to her for other reasons. And especially in
a volunteer situation, it seems to me, if she really was interested
in a relationship with her supervisor, she could be transferred to
someone else's supervision to avoid the problem.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Dec 9, 2011, 7:45:11 PM12/9/11
to
> I do not recall coercion being mentioned previously in this
> thread, please point to the reference.
That's the whole purpose for the restriction - to prevent someone
> thread, please point to the reference.
from feeling she has to enter into an unwanted sexual relationship or
refuse on pain of losing her job.
Why else would it be there?
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
Dec 9, 2011, 7:55:02 PM12/9/11
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Even the OP has not suggested that this woman was coerced into a
> relationship either with the threat of loss of position or
> otherwise.
OP just asked whether the situation is improper. To my mind in
> Even the OP has not suggested that this woman was coerced into a
> relationship either with the threat of loss of position or
> otherwise.
general it is, because coersion is difficult to prove.
If the two genuinely want to have a sexual relationship and there is
no coersion, it can be done by having someone else act has her
immediate supervisor. But if something like that isn't done,
particularly with respect to someone who is particularly vulnerable,
I think the presumption of coersion is justified.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Sara
Dec 10, 2011, 2:00:04 AM12/10/11
to
In article <Xns9FB6A991673B7s...@130.133.4.11>,
The OP has not suggested that the lady was coerced into the relationship.
Sara
Dec 10, 2011, 2:00:25 AM12/10/11
to
In article <Xns9FB6AA2E9DB4Fs...@130.133.4.11>,
Which is something for the club to decide, not for social services to be
brought in to investigate.
brought in to investigate.
arthur
Dec 10, 2011, 3:45:02 AM12/10/11
to
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:00:25 +0000, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
snip
>Which is something for the club to decide, not for social services to be
>brought in to investigate.
Yes I agree. I have reported my misgivings to the sort of committee
this man heads including him in the report. It is now out of my hands
and I will not be doing anything. However if this matter or something
similar is raised by somebody else and that leads to an investigation
I will turn over my mails etc to the investigator. There is a
misunderstanding I find hard to explain without identifying the group
or the people involved but it could be likened to a club that takes
disabled people flying. The volunteers are all flyers who cannot
afford their own plane but by working hard and gaining qualifications
they can then become volunteer flyers. If they do not go along with
the management they all know the planes will be full up and there will
be no place for dissenters so they keep quiet as they actually like
flying more than caring for disabled people. Along comes a volunteer
with a mental health problem and with no experience or suitability and
suddenly she is a flyer through sleeping with the chap who should know
better until he tires of her and ditches and she falls into a
predictable deep depression. If the senior person wanted to have a
relationship with this unfortunate lady he should have stepped down
from his position of influence within the flying club. It is up to the
club to deal with the issue now as my wife and I have no more to do
with the club or what it does with this situation.
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
snip
>Which is something for the club to decide, not for social services to be
>brought in to investigate.
this man heads including him in the report. It is now out of my hands
and I will not be doing anything. However if this matter or something
similar is raised by somebody else and that leads to an investigation
I will turn over my mails etc to the investigator. There is a
misunderstanding I find hard to explain without identifying the group
or the people involved but it could be likened to a club that takes
disabled people flying. The volunteers are all flyers who cannot
afford their own plane but by working hard and gaining qualifications
they can then become volunteer flyers. If they do not go along with
the management they all know the planes will be full up and there will
be no place for dissenters so they keep quiet as they actually like
flying more than caring for disabled people. Along comes a volunteer
with a mental health problem and with no experience or suitability and
suddenly she is a flyer through sleeping with the chap who should know
better until he tires of her and ditches and she falls into a
predictable deep depression. If the senior person wanted to have a
relationship with this unfortunate lady he should have stepped down
from his position of influence within the flying club. It is up to the
club to deal with the issue now as my wife and I have no more to do
with the club or what it does with this situation.
arthur
Dec 10, 2011, 4:10:03 AM12/10/11
to
as required you do not enjoy the benefits of the club. This includes
always being at the beck and call of the management for tasks. My wife
refused to become a full time volunteer running the snack bar.
arthur
Dec 10, 2011, 4:15:05 AM12/10/11
to
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 23:20:02 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
snip
>> The question is whether a senior manager should have a sexual
>> relationship with a vulnerable person who is receiving services from his
>> organisation.
>
>Which is not what the OP described.
Unfortunately it is very similar. The choice is do what you are told
or do not enjoy the benefits of the club. That keeps totally fit men
in line, indeed it causes them to creep and suck up to the management
in some cases. I don't suck up to folks who take advantage of less in
control people. It is all a power thing. Do as I say or become an
outsider.
wrote:
snip
>> The question is whether a senior manager should have a sexual
>> relationship with a vulnerable person who is receiving services from his
>> organisation.
>
>Which is not what the OP described.
or do not enjoy the benefits of the club. That keeps totally fit men
in line, indeed it causes them to creep and suck up to the management
in some cases. I don't suck up to folks who take advantage of less in
control people. It is all a power thing. Do as I say or become an
outsider.
arthur
Dec 10, 2011, 4:15:05 AM12/10/11
to
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:45:03 +0000, "Stuart A. Bronstein"
The volunteering position with this organisation is something
requiring much training and expense. It is a sought after role and of
course it brings social benefits for folks with few friends and little
confidence. I would have no problem with this relationship if the male
had stood down from the club.
requiring much training and expense. It is a sought after role and of
course it brings social benefits for folks with few friends and little
confidence. I would have no problem with this relationship if the male
had stood down from the club.
arthur
Dec 10, 2011, 4:15:04 AM12/10/11
to
resisted the temptation to exploit this lady or he should have stood
down completely.
Zapp Brannigan
Dec 10, 2011, 6:20:02 AM12/10/11
to
"Sn!pe" <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1kbyjhk.gnc4f61fwdryxN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk...
> Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are effectively barring any vulnerable person from forming a
>> relationship on the grounds they need protecting.
>
> Hear, hear. While it's true to say that one of the symptoms
> of a hypomanic episode can be promiscuity, to deny a sufferer
> from bipolar disorder a full relationship during their periods of
> remission is an outrageous invasion of privacy.
Nobody is denying her anything.
The question is whether a senior manager should have a sexual relationship
with a vulnerable person who is receiving services from his organisation.
with a vulnerable person who is receiving services from his organisation.
steve robinson
Dec 10, 2011, 8:45:02 AM12/10/11
to
Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> "Sn!pe" <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1kbyjhk.gnc4f61fwdryxN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk... >Man at
> B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are effectively barring any vulnerable person from forming a
> > > relationship on the grounds they need protecting.
> >
> > Hear, hear. While it's true to say that one of the symptoms
> > of a hypomanic episode can be promiscuity, to deny a sufferer
> > from bipolar disorder a full relationship during their periods of
> > remission is an outrageous invasion of privacy.
>
> Nobody is denying her anything.
>
> The question is whether a senior manager should have a sexual
> relationship with a vulnerable person who is receiving services
> from his organisation. The legal answer is almost certainly not.
>
> "Sn!pe" <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1kbyjhk.gnc4f61fwdryxN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk... >Man at
> B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are effectively barring any vulnerable person from forming a
> > > relationship on the grounds they need protecting.
> >
> > Hear, hear. While it's true to say that one of the symptoms
> > of a hypomanic episode can be promiscuity, to deny a sufferer
> > from bipolar disorder a full relationship during their periods of
> > remission is an outrageous invasion of privacy.
>
> Nobody is denying her anything.
>
> The question is whether a senior manager should have a sexual
> relationship with a vulnerable person who is receiving services
> There are numerous laws relating to abuse of trust, and it is
> strongly discouraged by every professional body I can think of.
>
> The OP is right to report his concerns.
From my understanding the woman concerned is a volunteer helping
> strongly discouraged by every professional body I can think of.
>
> The OP is right to report his concerns.
others (and probably getting a boost in the process) she is not an
employee , i cant see anywhere where Pete/ Arthur describes the man
or his rol in the organisation as a senior manager.
Bi Polar disorder does not mean the suffer is vulnerable most are
quite coherent often very articulate , some of the uks greatest
leaders were bi polar , i certainly wouldnt call the likes of
churchill vulnerable .
The worst thing you could do to te woman is to escalate this possibly
forceing her to quit that will cause her and her boyfreind untold
distress and send her into a real bad place .
Pete /Arther is not an expert he is making assumptions which without
such expertise and access to her files could cause untold damage.
Leave them alone to live thier lives , only if it interferes with the
operation of the club he attends should he raise the issue
Phi
Dec 10, 2011, 8:55:02 AM12/10/11
to
"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
news:jbvf5j$89p$1...@dont-email.me...
person through guilt.............it may even cause a suicide event.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages